I have tried numerous times to make the switch from Windows to something else. I wanted to find out if there was anything better than Windows.

I have tried Various variaties of Linux, Lindows and BeOS :)

The trouble is I want a PC that just works. I dont want to spend hours on end configuring the damn thing just so I can do something native in windows. So I always ending up comming back to windows

Theres far too much windows bashing that goes on imho. If you get good hardware with good drivers Windows will never crash. System Restore has to be one of the inventions of the century as far as OS'es are concerned. I have my PC on 24/7 without crashes and its great, I pull up to the PC and just use it. I can do everything without using a command line (and no Im not a command line n00b, I was command lining it back in the DOS 3.3 days)

Linux has come a long way, but it still isnt a user friendly OS. Actually user friendly is maybe the wrong term. More like Cant be bothered to sit and read why this program wont install and trawl umpteen websites to find out why and type in the 800 line fix friendly.

Reading some of the replies, I guess it's best to give a quick update.

If I'm honest, I'm still quite happy with it. I had a couple of angry moments with some software, especially mplayer and a couple of plugins for Firefox (Shockwave player anyone?) but no real show stoppers. I'm happily listening to streaming Virgin Radio right now in fact.. the point for me is that it's not hard to understand, it's just different

A couple of points to note. Firstly it reawakened that long dead desire to actually LEARN something in computing. I can honestly say that, even though it was a struggle sometimes, I actually enjoyed getting this working and the satisfaction was more than worth the complexity involved in a couple of places.

Secondly, I know that I can manage without Windows, at least on this PC. I'm not dogmatically into bashing Microsoft but I've been a user of their OS' for what, 15 years now.. that's a long time, even if they dress it up with new front ends now and again.

If I'm honest... It's really nice to have a change.

Finally.. it's all FREE. Now I'm not going to hassle people on their moral choices for software, but I really do endeavour to run my machines legally. This has shown not only do I not have to worry about finding alternatives for applications I can't afford in Windows, but I don't even have to worry about buying *any* software in the long run because everything I could want to do is covered.

A moot point for what seems like the majority, but an important one none-the-less.

I've come to the conclusion that this still isn't ready for the Joe Public desktop, but I would guarantee that any of you with a smidge of technical ability (which should be all of you :D) could easily run with FC4 or Ubuntu, with the obvious exception of playing games.

Thought I'd jump in, although things have gone quiet :) New user to bit-tech and all that ;)

Quote:

The part that scares me all the time is that damn "compile the kernel" and such, and also whether I can honestly run my games, which is harder on linux.

The kernel, although initially intimidating, is not that complex - download the source, extract, cd into the directory, run make xconfig, tick the boxes then make && make install (usually! - varies with distributions).

What I'd really like would be a way to compile a kernel 100% in gui (download the source, make config, compile, install etc) and then KEEP the kernel updated - allowing you to upgrade kernels quickly and quietly with one click (while keeping your config). This sort of thing could make Linux acceptable. Unfortunatly I don't have time to write something, but its on my todo list - just need some peace at work now!

I use Redhat Fedora on my workstation at work, on my two desktops at home. My laptop dual boots XP and Debian Unstable (you have to just LOVE apt-get !). Eventually I'll replace Debian with RedHat, because its just sooooo slick. I've used ubuntu, knoppix, mandrake and more - but kept going back to Debian (sorry guys, I find the command line preferable! Maybe 'cause I'm a coder and a techi?)

As far as I can see, Linux is poorly documented, and no-one supports games on it (although, I play Neverwinter Nights on my Redhat boxes :)). Pity Loki Games went bust.

Agreed. If you really want to learn about whats under the hood of a linux distro, and to get a better understanding i would suggest you look into Gentoo Linux. Yes it is time consuming as any packages, such as X.org, gnome, etc, need to be compilled from source (there are binaries available but it's just nicer to do it all from scratch).
If you just follow the Gentoo handbook for your Architecture then you cant really go wrong. Also like the Ubuntu users the Gentoo forum's have some excellent users who with endevour to help you solve your problems, also there are an awful lot of very good documents relating to mainy topics under Gentoo.

If you really want to take the plunge then you cant go wrong with Gentoo. If you don't want to take the plunge go with Ubuntu, The latest version (5.10 the Breezy Badger) is released today incidently.

I also find the windows-bashing quite rediculous, if someone knows what they are doing XP, 200 and Vista are easy to run stable.

for the most part people see others doing advanced things with windows and then say "why can't I do that?" and proceed to go completely out of their depth and blame windows when it crashes.

myself I find that the three primary operating systems have different strengths and weaknesses.

Mac OSX is good for multimedia work, but the hardware lock-in is quite annoying.

Windows is good for gaming and general use. this was its originally intended purpose, not to run everything under the sun and be perfect.

Linux is good as a Server/NAS/Networking OS, it does those obs very well, but is not suitable for desktop use.

personally I use Windows as a primary OS and then use Kubuntu for my NAS box. Kubuntu/Ubuntu is probably the closes thing to a user freindly system that the linux community has come up with, but still requres a lot of work to be an option for regualr consumers particularly in the idiot-proofing department. what most people need to realize is that the OS needs to have an extremely shallow learning curve, that way the consumer with the IQ of a goldfish can use it just as effectively as a techno-nerd.

A lot of people will disagree with you about linux's utility for desktop use, myself among them. I'm a relative minux noob, but I have yet to find anything that I just plain cannot do under linux, except play games. A lot of things are a bit more difficult under linux, but as I learn more I'm overcoming these issues. Put simply, it is an entirely servicible OS for desktops.

As for ease of use, beyond a point it becomes a liability. Windows has become so easy to use that any moron can use it, and some do. Lets face it, there is a percentage of the population using computers who have no business using them and who make life worse for the rest of us. Think about it, people who get infested with bots, or who buy things from spam messages, or who pass on infected attachments are probably not what most of us would consider power users. A certain level of difficulty in using a computer would tend to weed a lot of these people out of the installed base, and that's called natural selection.

Originally Posted by BluephoenixLinux is good as a Server/NAS/Networking OS, it does those obs very well, but is not suitable for desktop use.

You complain about Windows Bashing, but you do some pretty Linux bashing yourself... Now, tell me with facts, why a Linux based system is no good for Desktop use (I dare all the rest of the anti-Linux croud too...)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BluephoenixKubuntu/Ubuntu is probably the closes thing to a user freindly system that the linux community has come up with, but still requres a lot of work to be an option for regualr consumers particularly in the idiot-proofing department.

There is a difference between using and setting up a PC. It takes a lot more skill and knowledge to set up a PC right. A regular user will never format his disk. He'll take it to a tech and let him do it... So don't make unfear comparisons

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluephoenixwhat most people need to realize is that the OS needs to have an extremely shallow learning curve, that way the consumer with the IQ of a goldfish can use it just as effectively as a techno-nerd.

No... Completely wrong... What an OS has to have is an easy interface. The learning curve is just something you need to get through. A good example is the editor called "Vi". It's an ass to learn all the commands and keys, but once you get it, you'll be editing files 10x faster... Why build something that's easily learned, but doesn't feel good/works fast once you learned it?

Quote:

The long story is that, even though Vi is somewhat awkward to use at first, it enables fast, simple, and effective editing once you get the hang of it. A key concept in Vi is combining a certain action (delete, copy to buffer, capitalize, etc.) with a movement (go to line 25, go to end of document, go to next occurrence of "foo," go to 2nd occurrence of character "x" in this line, etc.). The action is performed on all lines or characters between the current cursor position and the destination cursor position. Vi is extremely powerful in moving around within (or between) files---Vim in particular is excellent. You can jump to a specific line, to the line where you were before jumping to the current line, to the line in the middle of the screen, to the line where you just changed "foo" into "bar," etc. You'll never have to mess with arrow keys to move around within a file. Finally, I observe that an effective Vi user simply edits files faster than Emacs people. Last but not least, you don't need a third hand (or nose) to type impossible key combinations. Don't get me wrong: Emacs is a great operating system---it lacks a good editor, though.

Vi has its dark sides, too. The biggest one is the need to step back before leaping forward when you are new to Vi. You cannot use Vi properly before knowing at least a handful of commands. This makes the threshold rather high. Vi doesn't get fast before you know 25 commands or so, and you won't be the cool dude(tte) before you know even more. Note that this is also true for Emacs. However, Emacs is much easier to use as a newbie.

It is not my intent to bash linux, and I find that it is indeed a very good OS, just confusing to those who attempt to learn it.

the point I was trying to make is for those who bash windows and say that everyone must switch to linux without thinking about the technicalities such a situation would entail, and also they bash windows for some of the same flaws linux has.

I concede the point about ease-of-learning versus ease-of-use my coment was intended to mean that it should be easy to set up and use on a basic level, but still have the capabilities for those that want it.

my own experience with kubuntu was confusing at first but once I spent some time with it, things got easier. and as for desktop use, I was notsaying its not any good at all. on the contrary, I like KDE more than windows half the time but most of the apps I use on a daily basis are windows apps tied to hardware with no linux variant (CAD/CAM software). the comment was about the general user; I know perfectly well that most power-users (self included) do like linux as a desktop, but for the average moron it is simply too confusing.

as for the natural selection comment; the people who need to learn to use a computer are often the ones with the lowest IQ. My mother has worked as the tech support section for a small software company for a while and the people who have to man the computers are the clerks, who generally aren't all that smart (apologies to anyone reading this who is a clerk, just basing off of experience).